Dear Editor,
Based on conversations I had with people in Guyana, including critics of the government, people are disappointed as well as pleased with President Ramotar’s announcement that he would dissolve the Assembly in the new year. They are disappointed with the failure of the parties to resolve their differences and return to parliament to continue the work for which they were elected. But since the parties cannot compromise on a way forward, the people are pleased that the President has decided to act on the demands of the opposition to dissolve the parliament and face the electorate.
The church, business community, and the population must be applauded for putting pressure on the political parties to meet and work out their differences. But these noble efforts have all failed to get the politicians to listen to rational views on the political state of affairs. The parties display stubbornness with each wanting its own way or the highway. Each of the parties is pulling in its own direction looking out for its own interest rather than for the interest of the nation leading to contradictory positions. For example, APNU said it wanted local government elections. President Ramotar said he was looking at a date in the second quarter of the year. This was followed by a contradiction when APNU said it would also support the no confidence motion to end the life of parliament thereby annulling any date for local elections. This was followed by a prorogation. Several democratic nations allow for the proroguing of their legislatures. So it is not an illegal or dictatorial act and it would have been foolhardy of him not to take evasive action to protect his government.
The political parties (the two opposition parties, in particular as noted by the business community) have rejected calls for compromise and mediation to come together in the interests of the nation. The President tried to nudge the opposition to join him for talks to end the prorogation. His letter of invitation was turned down. The opposition was adamant in its position it would not talk with Mr Ramotar unless he reconvenes parliament and face the no-confidence motion. I have never heard of such a position before in any part of the globe. In Grenada, for example, parliament was prorogued in 2012. After the six months period, the PM recalled parliament and immediately dissolved it and held an election. In other countries where prorogation was invoked as in Canada, for example, parliament was reconvened and the government did not face a no-confidence motion. What is the point of reconvening parliament if the assembly is going to be dissolved via a no-confidence motion? That is idiotic. Which leader would allow himself to go to the slaughterhouse if the constitution allows him a different path that permits temporary survival?
President Ramotar said he invoked prorogation as a last resort to save the life of the parliament that had not even completed three years of a five-year term. He said he wanted a cooling off period hoping the opposition would reconsider its action to end the life of the parliament. The business community (through the PSC) intervened and tried to meet the goals of all three parties. APNU wants local elections and it was in the PSC proposal that these be held in 2015.
The PPP did not want to dissolve the Assembly and the PSC offered it breathing space for some time before a no-confidence motion would be considered. AFC wants general elections and the PSC said it can always reintroduce its no-confidence motion in partnership with APNU after some time. But the two opposition parties insisted that parliament meet and debate the no-confidence motion. Clearly, no one wanted to budge and so the only way out of resolving the impasse was general elections. After less than a month of reasoning with the opposition and failing to come to a resolution, the President wisely announced the parliament would be dissolved.
Conversations with colleagues in the US and Canada suggest the President should have dissolved the assembly from the inception instead of proroguing. It was felt that at the end of the day, the Assembly would still have had to be dissolved because the opposition wanted to end its life and there was nothing Mr Ramotar could do to save it except through prorogation. Clearly, Mr Ramotar was not comfortable with the prorogation. (He could have waited for another five months before announcing a dissolution of parliament.) And so was almost half of the nation in a poll I conducted. Mr Ramotar was right in announcing he would end it. People applauded the President for at least trying to get the opposition to hold their hand and to rethink their position to end the life of the Assembly. People I conversed with in North America, Trinidad and Guyana support the President’s announcement to dissolve the Assembly and go to the polls. They also feel the President was right not to announce a date for the election now because it would cast a gloom over the end of year holidays. The opposition’s insistence that the President announce a date now would disrupt the Christmas spirit. I would prefer elections at the earliest perhaps at the end of March (but Gecom may not be ready). Many people from the business community I spoke with in Guyana say it would be better if the date is announced after Mashramani so as not to disrupt celebrations that buoy the economy. Had the President decided to enforce the prorogation through May as allowed by Burnham the constitution, elections would be held much later in the year.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
